Well, let's say that i wanted to convert an original AC3 to another AC3 file (audio unedited), would there have been any need to go higher then the original 384 kbps of the original AC3??
Quote from: Makaveli7184 on 25 June, 2012, 03:29:03 PMWell, let's say that i wanted to convert an original AC3 to another AC3 file (audio unedited), would there have been any need to go higher then the original 384 kbps of the original AC3??Why would you do that?
Because i can.Because i live in a democracy.Because that's what the voices in my head are telling me to do.Why does anyone do anything really?What does it matter to you?It was a theoretical question not meant to be taken verbatim.Because one, for example, might need to remove 2 seconds of silence from the middle of the track (which for practical purposes translates to "audio unedited" since its effect is negligible encoding wise).
Simple cutting and adding silence could be done without re-encoding.
Quote from: onkl on 26 June, 2012, 11:14:32 AMSimple cutting and adding silence could be done without re-encoding.yes, but with which tool?
Lossy to lossy is ugly and not so advanced formats like AC3 at very low bitrates probably suffer most. So when you re-encode your AC3 file at the same bitrate, quality will be worse. If it's still good enough for your ears, only you can tell.Simple cutting and adding silence could be done without re-encoding.
When decoding a lossy audio file, the content that was discarded by the encoder is replaced by noise (it may not be audible, but it's there) to pad out the data. Whatever encoder you use to re-encode that wave data will not 'know' what is real audio data and what is the added noise. To go from ac3 to ac3, you will need to increase the bitrate to reduce the quality loss, but whatever bitrate you choose, there will still be further degradation in quality. To go from one lossy format to another often appears to work better as the psychoacoustic models will differ. However, it is impossible to suggest a suitable bitrate in the example given as it will be content and audience dependent. You may get away with using a similar bitrate but it is unlikely that a bitrate much lower will be acceptable.As has already been said, ac3 5.1 at 384kbps is already pushing the limits of what ac3 can achieve and transcoding to any other format at a lower bitrate with any level of transparency will be a challenge. Only you can determine whether the result will be acceptable to you. Most people, I would suggest, would leave the audio alone as the bitrate is not excessive by any stretch and any savings in size achieved are likely to be minimal.
MP3directcut which can also do fading, so something like that might even be possible for AC3.
If size is not crucial, you can raise the bitrate to make sure quality doesn't degrade too much.
Quote from: onkl on 26 June, 2012, 01:45:32 PMMP3directcut which can also do fading, so something like that might even be possible for AC3.DelayCut doesn't do fading. I'll check for similar tools. But how can a tool do fading without re-encoding?